I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

I wish to share time with Senator McCormack. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Norma Foley. This Bill exists because at one of the most devastating moments imaginable, our system failed a mother. The Bill was not born out of theory or abstract policy discussion. It is not something dreamed up in an office or drafted in isolation. It exists because of a real woman, a real family and a loss are so profound that no parent should have to endure it.

I worked closely with the Irish National Teachers Organisation, INTO, in bringing this legislation forward. It was through that engagement that I first heard the story that inspired this Bill. I later spoke directly with the woman herself. I can say without hesitation that I was heartbroken listening to what she had been put through.

She was on maternity leave following the birth of her second daughter, who was just four and a half months old. Like so many families at that stage of life, things were busy and tiring, but full of love, and life was ordinary in the best possible way. Then, all of a sudden, everything had changed for her. Her older daughter became ill, and in the space of a very short time, she passed away. There are no words that can properly capture the death of a child. It is a loss that defies explanation, logic and language. It turns a family’s world upside down in an instant, and nothing is ever the same again.

This woman is a teacher. Under the circular, she was not entitled to four weeks of bereavement leave following the death of her own child. Here is where the system showed its coldest edge. Because she was already on maternity leave, she was told she could not take bereavement leave. She was also told that she could not defer, pause or postpone her maternity leave, so while everyone else in her family - her partner, her relatives and her loved ones - were able to take time off away from work to grieve the tragic loss of her child, she was not able to take bereavement leave for herself. In the eyes of the system, her living baby was weighed against her child who had died, as if one cancelled out the other one, as if maternity leave, which exists to allow a mother to take care of a newborn, could somehow be expected to carry the unbearable weight of child bereavement.

That is cruelty embedded in policy. It forced a mother, in the immediate aftermath of an unimaginable trauma, to remain on a form of leave that did not recognise what had happened to her emotionally, psychologically and physically. It sends a clear message that the system could not hold her grief. That is why this Bill matters.

Before I go any further in this debate, I want to be clear and honest. I do not know what is like to lose a child, but I have known close loss. I know how much grief is not something that just passes. It is not something that you can just move on from. Grief is ever-encompassing. It settles in every corner of your life. It changes how you see the world, how you relate to people and how you carry yourself through every single day. It does not disappear. It evolves. It reshapes you, and it becomes part of who you are. Knowing that, I cannot begin to imagine the depth of pain involved in losing a child and how it fractures a mother's sense of safety, identity and future. I cannot imagine waking up each day, carrying the loss, while still being expected to function as though nothing had fundamentally changed in my life. I hope with every part of me that I never know a loss like that.

What I do know is this. No mother experiencing the death of a child should have to be met with rigidity, silence and indifference from the State. The Bill does one simple, humane and necessary thing. It allows a mother to pause or defer her maternity leave in the event of the death of a child, and to resume that leave at a later date, when she is better able to care for herself, her baby and her family. It recognises that maternity leave and bereavement are not the same thing. It recognises that grief does not pause simply because a newborn still needs care. It recognises that the law must reflect lived reality, not just bureaucratic convenience.

Importantly, this principle exists in our legislation. We already allow for the postponement of maternity leave in cases of serious illness. We already accept that there are circumstances so overwhelming that the normal structure of leave must bend to human reality. This Bill simply extends the exact same compassion to parents whose lives are shattered by the death of a child.

It is tightly drafted, modest in scope and grounded entirely in lived experience, but its impact can be profound. What message do we send if we choose not to act? We tell grieving parents that the system cannot see them.

We tell them that their loss is an inconvenience. We tell them that their pain does not fit neatly into our rules to be recognised. We talk often in this House about family-friendly policies, supporting parents, mental health, dignity and compassion. This Bill turns those words into action. No parent should ever have to be told that they cannot grieve their own child because they are already on leave. No mother should ever again feel that her loss is being weighed, balanced or diminished by the existence of another child. We cannot undo the tragedy that led to this Bill being drafted, but we can ensure that no other family is treated with the same coldness by our system.

An amendment to this legislation has been brought forward by the Government. I have two clarifying questions. The amendment is for 18 months. Can I get the rationale as to why there will be a deferment for 18 months as opposed to six or 12 months? The rationale given is that the Government needs to examine the issues raised in this Bill alongside existing work to develop legislative proposals for pregnancy loss and miscarriage leave. This is the first time it is being spoken out loud in the House that the Government is looking at pregnancy loss and miscarriage leave. However, I know this was taken out of the Minister, Deputy Foley's, Department and put into the Department of enterprise. This Bill is not talking about pregnancy loss. It is talking about the loss of a child after they are born. Can we have clarity on that point? Has the Bill been read properly by the Department and the Government? If it is being lumped in with pregnancy loss and miscarriage leave, these are three different things altogether. I would like to have clarification on that.

I am very disappointed, to be honest. This afternoon, we had such a nice, powerful debate on maternal mental health supports, yet here, the Government is asking for deferment for a year and a half on something so simple. There is no cost. It is a cut and dry amendment that already exists in the legislation. We are just extending it to bereavement leave.

As there is a vote in the Dáil, I ask Senator Maria Byrne to propose the suspension of the House so the Minister can attend the vote.

I so propose.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am proud to second this motion and sincerely commend my colleague, Senator Nicole Ryan, for bringing forward this Bill. Senator Ryan has done something really important here. She has seen a gap in the law, listened to the lived experience, decided that it was not right and tried to fix it. As she said, this Bill is about one simple thing, namely, allowing a mother who has lost a child to pause her maternity leave and take it later when she is actually able to benefit from it. That is it. No new leave, no extra cost, just flexibility, dignity and basic compassion.

The death of a child is one of the most devastating things a person can go through. Anyone who has ever spoken to a parent who has experienced that loss knows that life does not just go on as normal. Time stands still. The world keeps moving but the parent does not. Under current law, some mothers are forced to use up their maternity leave during the most acute period of grief when they are simply trying to survive, not recover. That cannot be right. Maternity leave is supposed to support bonding, recovery and well-being. It is not meant to be burned up during trauma. This Bill just recognises that reality. It allows a mother to say she cannot do this right now but will need that time later.

Importantly, the Bill does not reinvent the wheel. We already allow maternity leave to be postponed in cases of serious illness. We strengthened that law in 2024 after listening to families affected by cancer during pregnancy loss and maternity leave. That change worked. It was compassionate and practical and caused no chaos. This Bill simply extends that same common-sense approach to child bereavement. The safeguards are already there. Medical certification is required, clear notice periods apply and the postponed leave must be taken later in one continuous block. This is not open ended. It is careful and proportionate.

Some may say that the number of people affected by this will be small but if even one mother is forced back to work while grieving the loss of her child, that is one too many. We do not measure compassion by numbers. For teachers, healthcare workers and other front-line staff, returning to emotionally demanding work while carrying that level of grief can be so overwhelming. This Bill gives them breathing space and time to heal. It sends the very simple message that the State will not force grief into a rigid timetable.

Again, I commend Senator Ryan on her leadership, empathy and determination to improve the law in a meaningful way. This Bill belongs on our Statute Book because grief has no timetable and our laws should reflect that. I am proud to support this motion on behalf of Sinn Féin but am very disappointed that the can is being kicked down the road for 18 months. I cannot understand that. It is not costing the State any money. We can do it for other circumstances, so why can we not do it for mothers when they lose a child, one of the most horrific things a mother can go through?

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:

- “Seanad Éireann resolves that the Maternity Protection (Child Bereavement) (Amendment) Bill 2026 be read a second time on this day 18 months, to allow for further examination of the issues raised in the Bill, alongside existing work to develop legislative proposals for pregnancy loss and miscarriage leave.”

Curaim fáilte roimh an Aire. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Maternity Protection (Child Bereavement) (Amendment) Bill 2026. I also want to acknowledge the deeply sensitive nature of the subject before us today. The loss of a child is one of the most devastating experiences any parent can endure and it is incumbent upon us as legislators to ensure that the law reflects compassion, clarity and fairness for families at such a vulnerable moment. Fianna Fáil welcomes this debate and we support the Government’s timed amendment, which proposes to defer the second reading of this Bill for 18 months. This is not a delay for the sake of delay. It is a necessary period during which the issues raised in this Bill can be carefully examined alongside the significant work already under way on pregnancy loss and miscarriage leave.

The Bill seeks to permit a pregnant employee, or an employee already on maternity leave, to pause that leave following the death of a child. It proposes a postponement ranging from a minimum of five weeks up to a maximum of 52 weeks, with the option of a second postponement within that same timeframe. These are substantial changes with far-reaching implications, not only for employees but also for employers, the benefit systems and existing leave structures. Under existing law, an employee is entitled to full maternity leave if she experiences a stillbirth or miscarriage after 24 weeks’ gestation or if her baby has a birth weight of at least 500 grams. These entitlements are kept under continuous review to ensure that they remain appropriate to the needs of working parents.

It is important to acknowledge the wider context. In recent years, working life has been transformed by remote and flexible working arrangements, by lessons learned during the Covid-19 pandemic and by new EU-driven family-leave obligations. The State has significantly expanded parental, paternity, adoptive and medical care leave, and introduced domestic violence leave under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.

With every new entitlement, we must ensure coherence, fairness and a clear understanding for both employees and employers. Work is already progressing in this regard. Following the Pregnancy Loss (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025, the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, together with the Department of Children, Disability and Equality, is developing legislative proposals on pregnancy loss and miscarriage leave. A major study, resulting in the PLACES report, has also been completed. It examines the workplace experiences of parents who experience pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks' gestation and asks whether we need national policy interventions to better support them. It is important to note that parents who experience pregnancy loss after 24 weeks can already avail of existing maternity and paternity leave provisions.

This work is reinforced by commitments in the National Strategy for Women and Girls 2025-2030, particularly the objective to advance sexual and reproductive healthcare and related leave provisions. The action plan for that strategy will include a specific action on developing miscarriage leave legislation. This is not just an exercise; it is live, ongoing work with real legislative outputs expected.

The Bill amends the Maternity Protection Act 1994 by inserting a new section 14D providing for the postponement of maternity leave following the death of a child. However, there are several areas where greater clarity is required. For example, the Bill does not specify whether the postponed period should be paid, nor whether payment should come from employers or the State. Without that clarity, we risk creating unintended consequences, financial uncertainty for families and administrative burden for employers.

The Bill also appears to mirror provisions introduced in the Maternity Protection, Employment Equality and Preservation of Certain Records Act 2024, which allows maternity leave to be paused for medical treatment related to serious illness. However, pausing maternity leave due to medical need is fundamentally different in nature from pausing it for bereavement leave, and this distinction needs careful consideration.

I realise the Bill was developed in conjunction with the INTO to reflect the entitlement of public servants to 20 days' bereavement leave, but the Bill proposes a postponement period far in excess of that. If unpaid, this could create significant income gaps for teachers and public servants and even greater challenges for workers in the private sector who may not have contractual bereavement leave at all. These are precisely the kinds of complexities that justify the Government's 18-month timed amendment. It gives us space to align this Bill with already advancing work on pregnancy loss legislation to consider payment mechanisms to avoid creating unintended inequities and to ensure that any policy change is workable for all sectors.

The intention behind this Bill is honourable. It reflects compassion and seeks to support parents in the most unimaginable circumstances. What we must do now is ensure that we get the detail of the Bill right and that the final legislation is fair, coherent and capable of being implemented consistently and effectively. Fianna Fáil remains committed to improving the supports available to parents who experience loss. We support the spirit of this Bill and the Government's timed amendment as the best way to deliver considered, comprehensive and compassionate legislation.

I thank all the Senators for the opportunity to speak today and respond to the legislation proposed by Senator Nicole Ryan to amend the Maternity Protection Act 1994. I acknowledge the work of the Senator, particularly over the past year, to bring greater focus to the issues women face in pregnancy and postnatal care, and I look forward to working with her to provide further supports to those most affected by such tragic circumstances. The Bill has been drafted with the very best intention: to give mothers, in an already fragile state following the birth of a child, the time they need to grieve when that child is lost. I fully agree that the sentiment here is valid. To lose a child is heartbreaking, but to lose a child while vulnerable on maternity leave – recovering from the trauma of birth and juggling multiple demands – is unimaginable.

I understand the Senator's disappointment over the Government decision to defer the Second Reading of the Bill for 18 months, but I want to set out the reasons on the record of the House today. As I have acknowledged, the intention of the legislation is in good faith; however, having read the Bill – I assure the Senator it has been read forensically – I believe there are issues with it, as currently drafted, that will need to be addressed. There are a number of actions that the Department and my Government colleagues are progressing that I want to inform the House about.

In the first instance, I want to note a number of unintended consequences that this Bill would have if enacted as it is. As the Senator has described, the Bill provides for an employee who is pregnant or on maternity leave to pause their maternity leave where they have lost a child. This is a worthy objective in any case. The Bill sets out that the postponement would be for a minimum of five weeks and that there is the possibility of a second postponement, with both postponement periods to be taken within a year of the start of the first pause. I understand the Senator has based this postponement on the amendments made by the Maternity Protection, Employment Equality and Preservation of Certain Records Act 2024 to allow an employee to pause their maternity leave to undertake treatment for a serious illness. In this case, the employee would be transitioning to other statutory leave or benefits, but that is not the case with the legislation under discussion today. That is a key point of difference. Bereavement leave is not a statutory entitlement at present but can be included as part of an employee's contract of employment. This is the case for civil and public servants, including teachers, whereby a set number of days' bereavement leave is provided, depending on the relationship of the employee to the person who has died.

In the case of a child, an employee is entitled to 20 working days, or four weeks, to take time to grieve and come to terms with their loss. There is no time limit you can put on this, which I am sure and appreciate was the Senator's intention with the minimum period included in this Bill. However, providing for such a postponement where there is not another form of statutory leave available, or where entitlements included in employment contracts are less than the minimum postponement period, places those most affected in a very difficult situation. With other postponements included in the Maternity Protection Act 1994, the employee would return to work for the postponement period, such as that for the hospitalisation of the child the maternity leave relates to.

The Bill is also silent on the paid nature of the postponed period. As I have mentioned, with the amendments made in 2024 to the Maternity Protection Act, those postponing their maternity leave and benefit move to illness benefit for the period in which they are undergoing treatment. As there is no entitlement to bereavement leave, a person who postpones their maternity leave would not be entitled to the associated maternity benefit. Therefore, the expectation of this Bill is either for the postponed period to be unpaid or that an employer would cover the period of at least five weeks, up to 52 weeks, with a payment. There is no clarity to what is being proposed by the Senator in this regard.

As the Senator is aware, the Government is fully committed to supporting parents before, during and after pregnancy, and that is reflected in the National Strategy for Women and Girls 2025-2030, which I launched in November last year. The strategy has seven objectives, each of which will deal with the challenges and barriers faced by women across the life course, and how these challenges are magnified when there are other intersecting and multiple forms of discrimination. Two key objectives I want to highlight here are the "Being Well" objective and the "Being Supported" objective. "Being Well" considers not only the physical and mental health of women and girls across their lives but also their general well-being. The commitments under this objective include advancing the provision of sexual and reproductive healthcare and related leaves and benefits. This speaks to the work ongoing between my Department and the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment to develop policy and legislative proposals for those who experience early pregnancy loss. The second objective I want to highlight is "Being Supported". This objective is intrinsic to the discussion we are having today in that it entails supporting women where they are giving care, and where they are receiving care. With this objective, we will be diving into the issues faced by women and girls, including the fair share of caring responsibilities, and expanding family leave entitlements to further support working parents in the workplace and at home.

The Department is currently developing the first of two action plans to implement the strategy with the interdepartmental committee to put the strategy into action. I know that the Senator has very little faith in strategies, and I agree with her to a point. A strategy is nothing without action but we need the strategies to direct the action. The strategy pulls together all the different national and international policy frameworks, the programme for Government commitments, EU priorities and sets out clearly and accessibly what the issues are, where the gaps are and where we need to further focus our work.

There have been significant developments in the forms of leave available to working parents in recent years. This includes the introduction in 2019 of paid parents leave and the expansion of that so that it now provides nine weeks paid leave to each parent of a child under the age of two. In 2019, unpaid parental leave underwent a significant extension, with the entitlement now standing at 26 weeks for a child under 12-years-old. These developments have taken place alongside a broader expansion of entitlements for all workers, like statutory sick leave and the embrace of the more flexible working patterns which have emerged from the Covid-19 pandemic. Further measures were included as part of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, which included the introduction of five days leave for medical care purposes, five days paid domestic, sexual and gender-based violence leave, the right to request flexible working hours for parents and carers, the right to request remote working for all employees and, of course, the extension of breastfeeding breaks. I recognise that none of these types of leave, none of these positive advancements, would address bereaved parents specifically but I highlight them as a context in which change in leave has taken place in recent years.

When consulting with employers and social partners on the development of new or expanded entitlements a number of issues often arise, such as the impact on employers and the ability of employees to make full use of their statutory rights. It is important that both employers and employees feel confident and assured that leave can be taken appropriately and in full. The Government recognises that these developments, which greatly benefit parents, must also be practical and genuinely meet the needs of both parents and carers. The Government fully understands that parents who experience a bereavement require support, compassion and the time and space necessary to process their grief. While providing such a postponement is one way of offering support, there are broader considerations around how the workplace and the Government can respond to the needs of a grieving parent. The postponement or leave alone, without additional supports, may not always meet the needs of an individual parent in such circumstances.

Again, my thoughts are with every person who has been affected by the death of a child and especially those who are on maternity leave. My officials and I are willing to work with the Senator on this issue, address the concerns that I have highlighted within the Bill and look at the policy behind it. However, there is work to be done to ensure that the intention of the Bill, which is a good intention, and I respect that, is executed to provide the fullest support to those who need it.

I thank the Minister very much for coming to address this all-important issue. I compliment Senator Ryan and her colleagues on bringing this Bill forward. The Minister has acknowledged that it is something that needs to be examined. She needs time to make sure that if we were to introduce something like this that it is done properly and that it will be to the benefit of people, especially those who have suffered miscarriages. I realise there is no strategy footing at the moment. I acknowledge Councillor Anna Grainger and Nee Job who are in the Gallery. Nee has her own interest in this whole area. She has written to me highlighting some areas of interest that maybe when the Government is looking at it, it could look at some of the suggestions.

Germany put this on a statutory footing for miscarriages under 23 weeks in June 2025. They provided six weeks of statutory paid leave following a miscarriage. They also introduced staggered maternity protection periods following a miscarriage from the 13th week of pregnancy with two, six or eight weeks of paid protection depending on the gestational age. That was a reform introduced in June 2025. Other European countries have introduced similar as well. As the Minister said, it is a very difficult time for people who are suffering a pregnancy loss or miscarriage. They also need support financially, as well as feeling that they are being cared for.

I understand where the Minister is coming from that she wants to do it properly. The way the Bill as presented currently might not work for women. It could end up costing them or they would not get a paid leave when they are out on leave at the time if they suffered a loss in pregnancy. What the Minister is committed to is looking at this, examining with her officials in the Department how it can progress and coming back with something that would work here in this country, and perhaps put it on a statutory footing. I thank her for the fact that she is prepared to look at it. It is important for people who are out there who have suffered loss. One in five is quite a high figure. A total 1.25% of the female workforce will experience a miscarriage each year. That is quite a high percentage. It is something that the Minister has said she is committed to looking at and seeing how it can be done in a meaningful manner for all. I commend Senator Ryan and her colleagues on this Bill. I look forward to working with the Senator, the Minister and the Department to see how this can be progressed in a proper manner.

I thank the Minister for coming along this evening. I commend my colleague, Senator Ryan and Sinn Féin on proposing this Bill. I am not going to go over the discussion that has just taken place, but will rather address the instrument by which the Government is using to delay or postpone the Bill. The Government has time amended the Bill for 18 months. To echo Senator Ryan's question, why is it 18 months? Why not six or 12 months? This is a Parliament parley. It is where we come together to talk and discuss. It is the Oireachtas - a gathering of people to discuss. All the issues were set out by Senator Murphy O'Mahoney very articulately and by the Minister about the concerns and clarifications. Can they not be addressed on Second, Committee or Report Stages? That is what they are for. When the Government time delays by 18 months, it closes down that discussion. I remind the House that this is not a polarised Parliament. Westminster is very polarised. It has led to very undesirable and antidemocratic outcomes. Washington has become polarised. We are not polarised; we are collegial. I have a question for Senator Byrne. How many Private Members' Bill slots will Senator Ryan get in the next 18 months or two years? It is probably one. The use of this guillotine and time delay is meaningless in the context of how we might improve, amend or ameliorate the Minister's concerns about the Bill.

I just had to laugh. I have the Order Paper. On page 132 scheduled for Christmas Day 2026 is a Second Reading of the Disability (Personalised Budgets) Bill 2024. Welcome to the club. The Government time delayed my Bill for 18 months. This is the second time that I have seen it.

Similar amendments have been applied in respect of other ideas coming forward. What is the purpose of the Seanad? It is to discuss and debate. It was originally designed in order that people could bring life experience to the Houses, advance the national discourse, try to do good and intervene positively. At a time when public trust in politics and politicians is being eroded, we are seeing these time delays being used. I know this is an instruction from Cabinet. From having dealt with the Minister, I know she is a person of absolute integrity. If I may be so bold as to say so, from her body language the last time this happened and even here today, I think she is probably uncomfortable with this deep down. It is a very paternalistic and cynical instrument to delay the passage of a Bill. To reference Quentin Tarantino, this is "Kill Bill". That is the design and intent of this. All of the issues the Minister has raised can be dealt with on Committee Stage. That is what this House is designed for. That is what we are all about. Then we see these time delays introduced.

Everyone spoke very articulately and I know we are all on the same page here and want to do the right thing but there was nothing in what the Minister said that intellectually justifies this 18-month delay so I have to ask myself what is the purpose of it. I hope we can continue and progress in a collegial and constructive way. We see the division in other parliaments and the damage it does to polity and public trust in politics. When the Minister is talking to her colleagues in Cabinet, I ask her to say that this 18-month time delay is not useful, constructive or necessary and that it is creating stress and frustration in what is properly an already arduous process. There are five Stages to getting a Bill through this House. Without timed amendments, Senator Ryan's Bill might have got to Final Stage before the next general election. This time delay does not serve the purposes of these Houses. It does not just undermine us, but everyone in this House. We are all here on a mandate. In saying all of this, I do not mean anything personal. However, I suspect the Minister shares my unease about her being directed to come here and delay this by 18 months. To reiterate, all of the concerns the Minister has raised can be addressed at the various stages.

I commend my colleagues in Sinn Féin and across the Civil Engagement Group and the Cross-Party Group. We are here to be constructive and to advance the public interest. We would like to work with the Minister on that but I ask for no more of these timed amendments. They are cynical and beneath the Government.

I know the Minister, Deputy Foley, has to go. I see the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, has arrived. I thank the Minister of State very much for being here. Before we move on, I see Deputy Willie Aird has brought some visitors to the Gallery. They are very welcome to the Seanad.

With the agreement of the House, I will share time with Senator Stephenson.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I am also disappointed about the timed amendment and the reason given for it. Eighteen months is a very long time. As Senator Clonan has said, we do not get to bring Bills forward too often. Eighteen months is a very long time for something as significant as this. While it does not affect that many people, it can transform lives. It is small legislation but very important. It would have a significant impact on families, mothers and fathers but would not involve a huge number of people.

I again thank Senator Ryan and her colleagues for introducing the Bill. Senator Ryan has been instrumental in highlighting care for pregnancy loss and postnatal care. Just before this, we had a fantastic session where we got full support from Government and Opposition for a year of postnatal care. To then come back to this timed amendment does not really make sense. The loss of a child is devastating. It is the greatest fear of any parent. It is right that, as legislators, we aim to do what we can in a caring society to help our neighbours through times of suffering. That is what this Bill does. It is a small but very focused change. It does not ask to change the world but it would make a change that would smooth the path for families going through some of their darkest days and would provide dignity, honesty and compassion.

In 2024, the year of the maternity protection Act, we recognised a certain principle. The Minister went through that. The Act allowed maternity leave to be postponed in cases of serious illness. That was an important and compassionate step and it has to be commended. It came on foot of brave campaigning by the Irish Cancer Society, the INTO and others. If we could do it then, surely we can do it now. In fairness, this was not a first for the Oireachtas. In 2004, the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act allowed employees who were sick to request termination of additional maternity leave and it allowed for maternity leave to be postponed if the child was hospitalised. The 2016 Act then introduced a provision that a father or surviving parent could take maternity leave where the mother died within 40 weeks of birth. Over the previous decades, we have agreed that compassion needs to apply when families face difficult circumstances.

This Bill is very logical. It builds on that legislation by providing that an employee who is pregnant or on maternity leave and who suffers the death of a child can request a postponement of all or part of their maternity leave for a period of up to 52 weeks. It is compassionate and it is exactly what we spoke about this morning. We spoke about postnatal depression, trauma and the physical and emotional supports mothers and parents need after having a baby. This would give mothers control over their lives as they face into unimaginable grief. It is a parent's worst nightmare. It would allow them to return to work on their own terms. Some mothers will choose not to postpone their leave but this would at least give them the choice. That is what we are here to do. We are here to make sure that mothers do have a choice and to give people dignity. The Bill has the full backing of both myself and Senator Harmon, who is not here today. I commend Senator Ryan on consistently bringing forward such legislation.

Hear, hear.

I share Senator Clonan's frustration at timed amendments. It is hard to come into the Chamber with ideas, solutions and progressive policies and legislation only for these to be delayed time and again. There will always be a reason to delay any individual Bill but as we hear this for every Opposition Bill, it is hard to take seriously any specific justification other than a desire to kick it down the road and put it on the long finger because of a lack of desire to work collaboratively on a cross-party basis to get good policies across the board.

Grieving the loss of a child is serious. It is not a linear process. To reinforce the point, this stands separate from any legislation around miscarriage. We are talking about a child who has been born and who you have held in your arms. It is not something that can be planned for or boxed into any timeframe, with the parents' lives going on afterwards despite suffering such a horrible loss. I support any measure that provides for a more compassionate society in the workplace for parents who are experiencing the worst trauma they could imagine by allowing them some time to grieve.

The Bill allows a mother to experience her maternity leave in addition to the time she deserves for the grieving process. Maternity leave exists to allow women time to physically recover from the ordeal of giving birth. It allows her to bond with her child and to focus on her own health and physical and mental well-being and on the health and development of her infant. It is a time to enjoy as a new mother. Should a mother suffer the loss of her child, she has similar but additional needs. She needs to physically recover from the birth, to look after her mental and physical health and to adjust to her status as a mother who lost a baby. How do you deal with lactation and bleeding with no baby in your arms? How do you navigate returning to the workplace to tell people that your baby died?

It has been reported that many women who have stillbirths experience symptoms of PTSD, anxiety and depression. Returning to work too soon can severely impact on the time needed for those with these symptoms to recover. Other countries have introduced similar things such as protective workplace regulations for parents going through this trauma. This relates to Senator Ryan's previous Bill on supported pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, although I emphasise that this Bill is separate from that.

The UK, New Zealand and Canada have recently introduced paid paternity leave for parents who have lost a child. Australia has Priya's law, whereby employers cannot cancel paid paternity leave if the infant dies. This Bill offers parents greater agency over their experience. All parents should be allowed to take adequate time off to recover and grieve instead of worrying that they are using up their parental time. Women and men both deserve this. I was shocked to learn recently that we do not actually have any statutory bereavement leave. That is just something that is given; employers can just choose to do that should they wish. We have a great culture in Ireland - I thank the Acting Chair for the bit of extra time - where we recognise the loss of any loved one or the loved ones of our loved ones. It is a brilliant culture but lots of companies here might not share that culture because they are foreign companies and they do not know what it means to us culturally to have that time.

The fact that we do not have statutory bereavement anyway was a complete eye-opener to me. It also means we need to have this additional legislation for statutory bereavement leave in cases of parental loss of a child. This should not be controversial. It is something that should already be on the Statute Book. I commend Senator Ryan on identifying this need and I hope that while we await this 18-month delay, the Government will seriously think about introducing this regardless. It is the bare minimum for supporting parents who lose a child. I know the Minister knows this and I know I am not alone in this.

Well said.

Before I put the question, I welcome Eileen and Cian O'Dea. Cian works for the Mayor of Limerick. They are the most welcome guests of our esteemed Senator from Limerick.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow morning at 9.30 a.m.

Is that agreed? Agreed.